You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
How to Trick Your Opponent: A Review Article on Deceptive Actions in Interactive Sports
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00917 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Iris Güldenpenning, Wilfried Kunde, Matthias Weigelt |
| Abstract |
Performing deceptive actions is a wide-spread phenomenon in sports and it is of considerable practical relevance to know whether or not a fake or a disguised action decreases the opponents' performance. Therefore, research on deceptive actions for various sport disciplines (e.g., cricket, rugby, martial arts, soccer, and basketball) has been conducted. This research is scattered, both across time and scientific disciplines. Here, we aim to systematically review the empirical work on deceptive actions in interactive sports and want to give an overview about several issues investigated in the last decades. Three main topics of the detected literature were discussed here: (1) the role of expertise for the recognition of deceptive actions, (2) the cognitive mechanisms underlying the processing of deceptive actions, and (3) the pros and cons of in situ research designs. None of these themes seems to be settled and therefore, they should be considered in future research agendas. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 14% |
| United States | 2 | 14% |
| Philippines | 1 | 7% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 71% |
| Scientists | 3 | 21% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 125 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 12% |
| Researcher | 7 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 16% |
| Unknown | 39 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 33 | 26% |
| Psychology | 21 | 17% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 4% |
| Engineering | 4 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 11% |
| Unknown | 44 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2019.
All research outputs
#3,712,800
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,419
of 30,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,015
of 316,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#187
of 607 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,131 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,407 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 607 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.